 ddweud o'r bydd o'r sydd ar gyferoguell er mwyn i amlwg. Mae gennym ddweud hwnnw i ddweud o'r bwysig yr unig Shalling Felly, mae amser datgymno ar ôl y cyfrannu cyfrannu sosial wedi cwmwyr yma yn ddym ni'n ffordd i'r cwmwyllt y Cymru, ac yn fyddiwch i'r Clyfrannu Chyrfodwch, adnoddwch i'r cyfrannu cyfrannu cyfrannu chyfrannu cyfrannu ym chi wedi'i cyfrannu cyfrannu, nid i eistedd i chi, i chi gynnwys cyfrannu ansgwyddy i chi i chi i chi i chi i chi i chi, i chi ddim ni'n gydig iawn. is a Scottish Government debate on programme for government 2021-22 on the economy. I would invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now, and I would call on the Cabinet Secretary, Kate Forbes, to open the debate for the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary is joining us remotely in terms of the rules on self-isolation. Yesterday, the First Minister announced our programme for government, setting out our ambitions for the next 12 months and the duration of this Parliament. I think that we would all agree that this publication comes at a hugely important time in the pandemic. We remain focused on keeping the country safe with the recent surge in cases as we tentatively move towards recovery. Despite the challenges, this year's programme for government marks a moment of renewed hope and opportunity. It sets out the actions that we will take to nurture economic prosperity for all of Scotland's people and places, whether they be urban or rural. It reinforces our commitment and our support to the entrepreneurs, the business leaders and the workers, but day in, day out, produce, create and provide services that our economy and communities depend on. In so doing, they provide employment opportunities and they drive investment and innovation in the economy. Our role is simple. It is to enable and support that entrepreneurial drive and ensure that Scotland remains a great place to start, develop, locate and grow a business. We want to create a pro-prosperity, pro-business and pro-jobs environment that fosters entrepreneurship and makes Scotland an even more attractive place for investors. We can stimulate business growth by investing in our people and expanding opportunities. We can also do it with well-paid and fair jobs, while securing a just transition to net zero. Our new 10-year national strategy for economic transformation will be key to delivering that vision. It is due to be published in late autumn alongside a new national challenge competition, which will provide up to £50 million for projects with the greatest potential to transform Scotland's economy. That will be a crucial part of building that successful thriving, prosperous Scotland that hopefully all of us in the chamber want to see. It will deliver the long-term transformational change that we need to build a sustainable, fairer, more inclusive economy where everybody can flourish. It is clear that the pandemic has taken its toll on Scottish businesses, putting livelihoods at risk, and all of that has been exacerbated by the impact of the recent EU exit. Since the start of the pandemic, all of us, including our businesses, have made sacrifices to protect public health. Helping those hard-hit businesses get back on their feet and our economy back to growth is crucial. Over the past 18 months, we have invested strongly to support Scottish businesses, providing more than £3.7 billion in direct business support since March 2020. We extended 100 per cent of non-domestic rates relief for all retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation premises for all of this financial year, which, alongside other measures such as a reduction to the poundage, ensures that Scotland offers the most generous non-domestic rates regime anywhere in the UK. In addition to those policies, we have committed over £1.7 billion to build a stronger and more sustainable economy. Our support has gone further than that provided in the rest of the UK. In January, we provided more than £230 million through retail, hospitality and leisure top-up grants, and, as a result, those businesses in Scotland received significantly more than their counterparts south of the border. Our culture, heritage and event sector received £175 million far more than we received in consequentials from the UK Government. Of course, our work does not stop now. We will continue to work with those that have seen the hardest impact as we move forward. That will include extending and refreshing the way that we work in partnership with businesses large and small in every part of Scotland. The small business bonus scheme, fresh start relief, and the business growth accelerator will continue for the lifetime of this Parliament, and we are supporting the recommendations of the tourism recovery task force, considering the best approach to future years, as well as promoting a thriving rural economy through the new £20 million rural entrepreneur fund. I am in no doubt that an innovative and entrepreneurial private sector is essential to support a wellbeing economy and is essential to delivering this programme for government. The programme for government clearly sets out our intentions to help to create and support that entrepreneurial private sector. Alongside our enterprise agencies and the Scottish National Investment Bank, we will support businesses at the forefront of developing the technologies of tomorrow by increasing funding for research and development to £100 million over this Parliament, which was a specific act that was asked by some of the business organisations. We recognise the vital role that international trade and investment plays in enhancing the productivity, and we will work to deliver our international economy plans underpinned by our values-led vision for trade. We are continuing our work to develop a digital economy, something that is particularly close to my heart. We are implementing the recommendations of the Logan review, and we are providing £100 million to improve digital capabilities across businesses. In addition, CivTech will receive £46 million to create more opportunities for innovative businesses and up to 700 new high-value jobs. We will also deliver future-proofed mobile and broadband connectivity the lengths and breadth of Scotland through Scottish 4G infill and reaching 100 per cent programmes, and we will begin delivering our five-year £35 million programme to digitally transform planning services. Over the next five years, we want to invest to help businesses in promoting the good green jobs that will help to secure the just transition to net zero. Although we have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to meet our ambitious targets to end Scotland's contribution to climate change, I firmly believe that there is also an enormous economic opportunity to be grasped here. We want to do that, while ensuring that we deliver the just transition that will have a positive impact on every aspect of our lives, including delivering more job security and fairer work. Our co-operation agreement with the Greens will only push us forward in our plans to do that. The Green Jobs Fund will provide £100 million over the next five years to help businesses create employment through investment, and our commitment to infrastructure is steadfast. We will invest in the infrastructure that we know we need to boost our recovery, with £33 billion over the course of this Parliament in the national infrastructure mission to create new jobs and markets and deliver benefits across Scottish supply chains. In the coming year, we will start work to develop options for the creation of a new national infrastructure company and will announce the first pathfinder projects for the green growth accelerator ahead of COP26. That will mark an important first step in unlocking up to £200 million of public sector investment and incentivising local authorities to deliver low-carbon infrastructure. The Scottish National Investment Bank will also continue to build its portfolio with £1 billion of capital funding across the Parliament. Although good green jobs represent enormous economic and environmental opportunities for Scotland's recovery, we need to make sure that those opportunities are distributed fairly and that they meet the needs of our businesses. We are all conscious of the current chronic labour shortages in sectors that are central to our recovery, including tourism, hospitality and logistics. That is clearly connected to the UK Government's damaging migration rules. We have written to the UK Government asking for an urgent meeting and to push for changes that would increase Scotland's ability to import and distribute essential goods. This Government, together with a number of business organisations, has and will continue to press the UK Government to urgently revise its immigration policy before further damage is done. Going forward, we will continue to work with business, understand their skills need, to address long-standing recruitment and retention challenges, and to equip people with the skills that employers need now and in the future. We want to promote and maximise employability and skills interventions that will help workers to enter into or progress in sectors where there is key demand. We will support those who are most impacted by the pandemic in that process. We will support them into fair work, young people, women and lone parents, disabled people, those from minority ethnic communities and lower income households. In order to do that, over the lifetime of the Parliament, we will invest an additional £500 million to support those jobs of the future, including upskilling and reskilling people, to access those jobs and to address skills, gaps and shortages. Young people will also be supported into employment, with up to £70 million for the young person's guarantee this year, and we will also invest up to £20 million through our no-one-left-behind partnership. As I draw to a close, there is no doubt—we are all agreed on that in the chamber—that when we look back, the pandemic clearly has brought with it suffering and sacrifice among our business community and beyond. However, as we look forward, recovery means that we can do things differently to deliver a just transition and to push our economy forward, creating prosperity, business opportunities and jobs. The programme for government that was announced yesterday gives us the basis to start that journey towards that economic transformation. As we continue the debate about this programme for government, it behoves all of us, once again, to recognise and understand that the expectation from the public—as was clearly shown yesterday—is for the Parliament's primary focus to be on economic recovery from the pandemic. In the same context, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that business and industry are wanting both certainty and stability and a long-term strategy from government that will protect jobs, people's real disposable income and the incentives for investment and economic growth. On the question of growth, given that there was much debate last week about the Green Party's approach, let me say this. Yes, it is true that there are several measures that are important when it comes to assessing the progress of any economy. Yes, it is true that GDP and GNP are incomplete measures because they notably admit some variables such as externalities. However, that does not take away from the fact that they remain the most important internationally recognised measures precisely because they measure the net output of value added in an economy in terms of the goods and services that are purchased with money. There will always be an extremely good guide to which areas of the economy are working well in terms of securing employment, improving productivity and creating new investment, all of which, of course, help to determine real disposable income. If we do not have that strong economic growth, then we all suffer. Common sense surely tells us that. Of course. John Mason? Would the member accept that we can have growth but sometimes not everyone benefits? Liz Smith? Yes, I said earlier in my speech that there are other measures that can determine economic growth. However, the primary concern about growth in any economy is because it provides the facility to do other things that are so important and to allow for measures that will reduce some of the inequalities that we have in our society. It does not matter which business you talk to, whether it is small, medium or large, which economic forecasters or public policy units you listen to or which financial services you are speaking to, they are all telling us unanimously that economic growth is the most important thing post-pandemic. I am afraid that when it comes to the Greens, it really is the Greens against the business world. I wonder where the SNP really is coming from on this, because it is not that long ago when the SNP was agreeing with the business world. Nicola Sturgeon at the SNP conference, I quote, our Government's priority is economic growth and we will do everything we can to get the economy growing again. John Swinney, when he, as finance secretary and deputy First Minister, he was giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, explained why the priority of the Scottish Government was to maximise investment and support economic growth. Kate Forbes earlier this year, when she was reacting to concerns raised by Sir Tom Hunter about the SNP's approach to business, she said, that is why this Government is absolutely committed to being pro-prosperity, pro-growth and pro-business. I do not disagree with any of the three senior SNP ministers when they make those comments, because they are right about the importance of growth. But why on earth do you go into a coalition with a party that is fundamentally opposed to this as a priority? That will be a tension that will continue to dominate the coalition for however long that lasts. Kate Forbes said at committee on 31 August that she would like to build a 10-year economic strategy, and she repeated that today. But she also said that she thinks that that cannot happen in full, because she does not have the necessary funds from the UK Government to address the exogenous shocks to the economy or sufficient information about the timescales that will underpin how Scotland will benefit from various UK projects such as the shared prosperity fund, levelling up and the community renewal funds. On that latter point, I think that there will be welcome news in the Chancellor's next budget that details of those funds will emerge, but when she complains about the UK Government not providing the necessary funds to assist the critical economic challenges ahead, I really do wonder how she thinks that the Scottish Government would have been in a position to fund the Covid recovery without the massive injection of UK's cash, most especially in terms of furlough and the huge assistance that is now to be provided via the health and social care plan. That is our comment for Liz Smith to ask, because she knows the answer to it. The question back to her is, how has every other country in the world managed to do it? Do you think that Scotland would be unique amongst almost 200 countries in the world in being unable to support our economy through the Covid pandemic? Liz Smith, is Mr McKee really saying that we would have had the same benefit without the UK of ensuring that they really... You are actually claiming, Mr McKee, that our Covid recovery... Liz Smith, sorry. If the member wishes to ask Mr McKee to confirm or clarify or whatever, perhaps Mr McKee could stand up and not be done, sort of, so to vote she, if that's possible. It's up to the member though, if she takes the intervention or not. No, I'm not going to take the intervention, Deputy Presiding Officer, because I really can't believe that he actually asked that question, because it's abundantly clear. I want Mr McKee. Let's go to Professor Mark Blythe, who I believe is one of your top advisers and an independent supporter, I think. He's warning that independence upheaval would be Brexit times 10. I think that view is shared by a lot in the Scottish business community and indeed amongst the public. On this side of the chamber, we are very clear in our minds that the economy brief must have, as its primary focus, policies that will support enterprise, especially assisting small-scale business and new startups, and policies that will drive innovation and sustainable infrastructures. That is particularly true for the small business sector, and we should remember that many of our small businesses are those that help our local communities most of all and which employ 43 per cent of private sector jobs. Those firms are the ones that have had a disproportionate Brexit burden and a disproportionate debt, a point that was made very strongly to myself when we met the FSB just a few days ago. We support the small business recovery plan, including the business rates relief aspects, because it's very clear that the current system of taxing non-domestic property does not work for too many businesses. I won't, if you don't mind. Physical retailers find themselves paying higher taxes than their competitors, despite the fact that they are addressing more local jobs. A very interesting comment was made at the finance committee yesterday by Kevin Robertson of the Scottish Property Federation, who is arguing that we perhaps need some legislative change to make tax more modern and more efficient. Of course, there are all the issues about skills. I think that Sandy Begby and the SFE have made it very clear about the need for better pathways for apprenticeships, taking advantage of the huge global ffintech market, technology hubs and net zero objectives. They are very clear about the connectivity and the collaboration that is required between firms in Scotland. Much better links between Governments and the private sector and the development of far more digital skills. May I finish on a point that is very important? That is about the huge demand among businesses, as well as among the public, for better value for money in public services. The Scottish Government has presided over disasters when it comes to things like ferries and bifab to name just two projects that have brought into serious question a lack of transparency and accountability of public money. It is interesting, too, that the Auditor General is making some very strong criticisms about the gap between the Scottish Government's commitment and its delivery. Of course, committees in this Parliament have in some cases concluded that there has been a catastrophic failure in the management of the procurement of public money. Members have heard me speak several times in this chamber about transparency, and I hope that this parliamentary session will do a lot to improve transparency, accountability and the scrutiny of financial decision making. I am absolutely clear that there should be one focus and one focus alone, and that is on economic recovery. The pandemic is not over, it is peaking. Recovery is not under way, it has barely begun. The project of recovery will demand our full attention for the duration of this Parliament and beyond. The success or failure of that project will shape a generation. That is the challenge that the programme for government needed to rise to, but my fear is that it barely engages with the requirements of that recovery, let alone the challenges or how to address them. The word recovery does appear, but the announcements are either retreads or, so inconsequential, they barely scratch the surface. A word that is mentioned is independence, but independence would not be quick. There will be 20 years of economic uncertainty and cost, capital flight Brexit times 10. Not my analysis, but those of Professor Mark Blythe, one of the First Minister's leading economic advisers. Recovery demands urgency and prolonged action. It will not be done by 2023, but it is clear from the First Minister's statement yesterday that she is more comfortable with a constitutional circus than the seriousness that is demanded by economic recovery. Ministers should actually talk to businesses. They do not think that recovery is done, and they are worried that they have debts, even those that have never traded with debt. Small business owners have cashed in their pensions and remortgaged their houses to keep going. Customer volumes are down on where they should be, they have no clarity on what measures may be coming next, and they know that some habits have been changed forever by lockdown. It is not just small retailers or small shops. Online has risen by 50 per cent, with the majority of that going to large online retailers. Fruit fall is 30 per cent down. Chains are shutting 30 stores a week. Retail is 10 per cent of private sector employment, and we have to ask the question, will it continue to be? It is not just retail. Right across consumer-facing sectors, the patterns and stories are the same. Those are the things that a recovery plan needs to deal with—debt, changed behaviours, resilience but most importantly jobs. Debt needs practical and financial help for businesses whose balance sheets are now loaded with debt. Figures from the FSB have outlined that small firms have taken out £4.1 billion of debt over the past 18 months. Changed behaviours help for businesses to transition because their customers are not coming back, working from home, shopping online. Resilience, we need clarity and advice so that businesses have systems in place to continue to trade as and when new measures are imposed to control the virus. On jobs, the most important point, the jobs that we did before the pandemic may not be the ones that we do post-recovery. We must help people to reskill and retrain and businesses adapt if the consequences will be counted in those jobs being lost. However, that analysis or something similar to it is completely absent from the programme for government. More importantly, what is absent is the sense of urgency. Of course, we have the promise of an ill-defined 10-year economic transformation plan to be delivered some months in the future, but economic recovery cannot wait 10 years. We need a 10-month plan to help to reskill people and businesses to transition. We need a 10-week plan to ensure that businesses survive and people keep their jobs when furlough ends. We do not need more export groups taking months to produce another report to be ignored by government. We need ministers to get a grip, take responsibility and take action now. On that note, if Mr McKee would like to enlighten me, I would be grateful. Take action now. £500 million in upskilling and work learning, £20 million in the national transition training fund, £20 million in no one left buying partnership, £70 million for the young person's guarantee, and £20 million for the rural entrepreneur fund. I can go on and on and on. We are doing a lot. Every one of those numbers needs to be divided by five. If you look at the coming year, only £150 million will be spent on reskilling or transition training. Compared to the 150,000 people who were still on furlough through the summer, that is a drop in the ocean, Mr McKee. I think that he should recognise that. Without job bold action, Scotland faces an unemployment crisis that will become a national emergency. To talk in more numbers, between April and June this year, there were 119,000 people unemployed in Scotland, but the national training fund, just referenced by Mr McKee, was only targeting 17 per cent of that population. That is shamefully inadequate. We have to ensure that small businesses can access specialist digital support, but the funds offered are not nearly enough. There is a re-announcement of a scheme that is already oversubscribed. To further to that, there are only two Covid-related business support schemes. Both are re-announcements and will come to an end through this current financial year. We come to green jobs. The Scottish Government has been very keen to lace green words and green credentials through the programme for government, but most, if not all, the green measures are simply recycled. What impact have the Greens actually had on the programme for government? We got our answer today because it was confirmed in the press that the Scottish Government has scrapped its plans for a publicly-owned energy company. It is clear that any influence that the Greens may have had has been sold out from ministerial job titles that any ministerial influence. Not only has the... I'd be delighted to do that. I'm grateful to Mr Johnson for giving way. Does he not think that it's also ironic that just a week after the Greens have joined the government, we learned today that the wind farm turbine factory in McRahadish in Argyll is now closing permanently? That doesn't demonstrate much of a commitment from this Government to supporting green jobs. It does strike me that this Government is more interested in green posture than green delivery, and I think that that announcement of the wind turbines simply underlines that fact. But not only has the Government brought little forward to address the economic recovery, there is no detail or explanation about how existing policies and government machinery will be used to sustain recovery. There is no mention for a role for Scottish Enterprise, South of Scotland Enterprise or Highlands Downs Enterprise. The announcement for the Scottish National Investment Bank isn't new. It's a cut. No plan for how these agencies should work or co-ordinate to enable or deliver recovery. The stark fact is this, despite enterprise support being now needed more than ever before, this SNP Government is spending 40 per cent less in real terms than the last year of the last Labour Administration. 500 million compared to 800 million in real terms in 2007. Despite one additional agency, a new investment bank and a new, apparently integrated board, 40 per cent less at a time of economic growth, despite this being a time of global pandemic. The lack of vision, strategy or care plan from this Government should come as no surprise. This is a Government whose economic record is marked by failure and calamity, from dodgy ferries to empty airports to empty and unused turbine yards. When it comes to the economy, this Government position seems to be pandemic, what pandemic? The effects of the coronavirus will be with us long after the disease and illness subsides. This is a serious time for serious politics and serious politicians. I'm afraid that the PFG demonstrates that, on those measures, this Government and those ministers are seriously deficient. Liz Smith, who I think is just leaving the chamber, made an interesting slip. She said that independence would be Brexit times 10. That is from the Conservative party that claimed that Brexit was going to be a good thing for our country. I think that what she admitted was a deep uncertainty within the Conservative party about the reality of it—not just now, but just about finishing the point. The point is that both are as bad as each other. They should not be repeated. The mistakes of Brexit should be remembered and recalled when we enter the next phase as the SNP tried to move forward on independence. Of course, independence would be Brexit times 10, and that is why we should not repeat that mistake. I'll take Murdo Fraser. I'm grateful to Mr Rennie for giving way. I'm simply rising to defend my colleague Elizabeth Smith, who disappeared to the back of the chamber momentarily. I simply declare that all that she was doing was quoting Professor Mark Blythe, not saying that that was her view but quoting the view of the Scottish Government's new starry-eyed economic adviser. That's a wonderful contortion. I congratulate Murdo Fraser on that complicated explanation. That extreme position of both the Conservatives and the SNP being as bad as each other with their propositions on Brexit and independence is repeated in terms of the Greens and the Conservatives on economic growth. I thought that it was an interesting contribution from Liz Smith to explore this very important area. I rarely say that, but John Mason was right. We should not have absolutist positions on that. That is not about GDP or nothing. That is about the balance. That is about making sure that we take into account the social impact, the economic impact and the environmental impact. Governments in the past, particularly Conservatives, have had almost an absolute commitment to the economic growth, to the exclusion of all else. The absolutist positions of the Conservatives and the Greens are on the extremes once again that do not help us to move forward in this debate. Liz Smith is free to leave the chamber if she wishes. I am not going to refer to her any more. Coming out of the pandemic was always going to be much more difficult than going into the pandemic. We have seen that with many business failures as a result. However, the incredibly turbulent position that we have now is a good thing that workers are getting paid an awful lot more, especially those who were on low wages. Of course, it is challenging for businesses who are finding it difficult to get good workers to open their businesses. We have seen many operating restricted hours as a result, and they are not able to meet the pent-up customer demand that we have seen in recent weeks. Of course, it is a good thing that they are paid more, but the challenge for business is considerable. We have also seen a shortage of materials, partly as a result of the manufacturing disruption, and the pent-up demand that has come through. We have not seen the worst of Brexit yet, because the pandemic has partly held the world in suspension. We may see the full consequences of Brexit yet to hit when the full release of the pandemic comes. Of course, businesses are also facing good pressure on climate change with increasing demands from government and society to reform their operations. All those things are incredible pressures. For me, adding on top of that the challenge of independence would be reckless. I agreed with the First Minister through the election campaign when she said that the recovery would come first. I think that this recovery is going to take a very long time to secure. We have seen the turbulence now, it is going to even take longer to get on top. Even when you take into account the massive challenges that we face in our social care sector, including recruiting workers, economic pressures and the NHS, it will take a long time to recover from the pandemic. It would be reckless to pursue independence in the process. The Government is good at promises, and I give it credit for that. It has endless promises and lists of commitments that it has made, but its delivery is very poor. Look at its industrial strategy. Lochaber-Smelter has reluctantly come back to that once again. There is no sign of the 2,000 promised jobs for the Fort William area. There is no sign at all that we are barely keeping the company alive. There is no sign of the 2,000 jobs. In terms of Ferguson, there is no sign of those ferries for the desperate islanders who want reliable ferry services. By fab, there is just no sign of the company at all. It collapsed despite significant Government investment. When it comes to delivery on their promises, they are not particularly good. I will take an intervention. Liz Smith, I am very grateful to Mr Rennie for giving way and I entirely agree with the points that he has just raised. Does he also agree—I think that he probably does give him what he said in the last Parliament—that there is a lot to be said for improving the scrutiny process in this Parliament about public procurement and how the money is spent? There is far too little we know about who owns what and who owns what. I will agree with Liz Smith on that. I think that that is a very sensible proposition. I will quickly go through some of the key priorities for the next period. We need to reform the skills and training agenda. We need to make sure that the apprenticeship levy works more effectively. It is a disincentive for training. We need to have a 12-month recovery visa. That is a UK Government responsibility that they need to deliver. We need to sort out the driver training programme. That is going to be a real priority. Of course, universities—some of our most international institutions—are under incredible pressure just now. They are major economic drivers. We need to make sure that we support them so that they can do more of what they do well. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We will now move to the open debate. I call Fiona Hyslop to be followed by Donald Cameron. We are still living in and with a pandemic and the impacts of that. We should reflect that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has amended its predictions upwards in terms of economic growth for Scotland and downwards for unemployment, and that is positive. I want to focus my remarks on the economic transformation and just transition to the next zero future that members across the chamber want to see. The programme for government is ambitious and bold, and it is based on a full manifesto that was emphatically endorsed by a victory in the election in May. Do you not underestimate the expectations of the people of Scotland for us to work together to tackle those most serious of challenges that are facing our economy, our society and our environment? Oppositions oppose, but they must also rise to the occasion when the circumstances demand, and a pandemic and a global emergency demand that. But parliamentarians should not be uncritical, and the challenge for the programme for government must be to move beyond strategy and policy and funding announcements and focus on effective delivery and implementation. The First Minister stated yesterday that the recommendations of the Just Transition Commission are to be accepted, and it was accompanied yesterday by the very welcome Scottish Government's response to the Just Transition Commission's report, with specific actions and commitments backed by policy and funding set out in the programme for government. We face the twin pressures of Covid recovery and the drive to net zero, but, unlike other countries, we do so in the context of an unmanaged and damaging Brexit. I know that the Government's relentless focus on mitigation of Covid impacts, but it cannot and must not constrain our drive to net zero. The economic recovery and net zero direction and, yes, values of the country that we want to be in a world that has changed so much, that future direction for our country should be in the hands of the people of Scotland with an independent referendum. Political choices matter, and we face a UK Government wanting to tax the youngest and the poorest to pay for much-needed health and care funding, rather than a windfall tax on those who have profited excessively from their Covid crony contracts. I represent the constituency of Llynyddgo with towns and villages across West Lothian, which have known their fair share of industrial transition, but often unfair and unjust transition, and we must learn the lessons of the past in shaping the future. The Collective Pardon for Miners Bill will be welcomed by my constituents, just as the UK Prime Minister's crude clumsy mischaracterisation of the demise of the mining industry in Scotland was unwelcome. Scotland needs a managed just transition to transform our energy production, distribution and use to tackle heat and housing and transport needs in particular. I welcome that the Scottish energy strategy will have just transition at its heart and that the 10-year economic transformation plan will have it embedded and that sector plans will be part of that and that there will be a skills guarantee for transitioning energy workers. We need to see the mobilisation of private, not just public funding, and Government can incentivise private investment through smart, bold policy and regulatory decisions in housing and transport. The programme for government has short-term immediate measures to help business recovery. For example, in the very important area of tourism, it will provide continuing rates relief, which is very welcome among many tourism and hospitality sectors. 100 million pounds for digital and business capacity is one of the issues that Daniel Johnson referred to and is going to be delivered as part of the programme for government. That money for rural entrepreneurs will help to revitalise different sectors with 20 million pounds of investment and 10 million pounds for tourism infrastructure projects will help in order to attract more tourists to visit those areas. Importantly, listening to the business, the sector-led tourism recovery task force has put forward recommendations and the programme for government is supporting that with £25 million to support recommendations from the industry-led tourism recovery task force. It not only addresses the short-term pressures that people have talked about, but it also addresses the long-term measures that we need to secure that green economic recovery. 1.8 billion pounds to reduce the emissions of home and building heating and to tackle fuel poverty—bold, ambitious. 500 million pounds for a just transition in the north-east of Scotland is vital at this point, recognising the needs and demands of that area. Support for the green jobs for the future, upskilling and re-skilling people, and I am looking forward to the announcements from the green jobs fund that will be coming forward shortly. 5 billion pounds to maintain and improve and, importantly, decarbonise, I am just about to close rail services. A £240 million in the energy transition programme and £1 billion for the Scottish National Investment Bank, and only yesterday the announced £6.4 million in tidal energy company Nova Innovation, a world-class company. All of that in a programme for government matches the reality of coping with immediate issues, which has policies, funding and drive to deliver for a just transition to a net zero future, and I commend it to Parliament. The First Minister describes her Government's new partnership with the Scottish Greens as genuinely groundbreaking and a new and better way of doing politics. She argues that it provides a strong foundation for strong and decisive action. Yesterday's programme for government is the opposite of strong and decisive action. What is clear is that we are in for another five years of tired and rehashed policy and another five years of constitutional naval gazing. I have listened to six programmes for government in this chamber, and I am always amused by the fact that SNP-backed benches are clearly told to use the words bold and ambitious to describe the new policy programme. In fact, Fiona Hyslop did just that a few minutes ago when speaking in these debates and it happens every time. Sometimes we get a bit of variety. Instead of bold and ambitious, we are treated to ambitious and bold. But just by calling it bold and ambitious doesn't make it so. This year, as ever, the same is true. This programme for government is not bold and ambitious, it is cautious and timid. It is thin, thin, gruel, Deputy Presiding Officer. Despite warm words from the First Minister on focusing on recovery from the pandemic, you barely have to read through a handful of paragraphs of the forward—sorry, I would like to make a bit of progress. You barely have to read through a handful of paragraphs from the forward. All have listened to her in this chamber yesterday to learn of the SNP's plans to foist another referendum on Scotland at some point before 2023. Where have we heard that before? We are now in a new session of the Scottish Parliament, and this programme for government was a real opportunity to focus on the pressing need to create new jobs, to rebuild our economy, to sort out the long-standing problems in our NHS and to close the attainment gap. Instead, the SNP Green coalition has opted to park the urgent priorities to the side, rather than delivering for communities right across Scotland. Willie Rennie is absolutely right—he focused on delivery, and Fiona Hyslop, too, talked about delivery. That is the particular problem here. The words of Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General and Neutral in this debate—no axe to grind—are really worth paying attention to. He said that there is a major implementation gap between policy ambitions and delivery on the ground. There is a mismatch between the Scottish Government's vision of a more successful Scotland, where poverty is reduced and economic growth is sustainable and how we assess public sector performance. That goes beyond Brexit, beyond indyref 2 and Covid. That is the real issue. You can have the shiniest policies in the world, but if they are not delivered, it means nothing. I want to look at how the programme for government will impact the region that I represent and where it is missing the mark. I had hoped to see concrete and deliverable policies that would help to rule and remote parts of the Highlands and Islands to recover from the pandemic. In the last five years, when it comes to delivery, my region has witnessed a catalogue of failures from this Government, whether that be the failure to deliver 100 per cent superfast broadband to every home and business by the end of the last Parliament or the failure to deliver on key infrastructure problems and help to reverse the worrying trend of rural and island depopulation. The greatest failure is the Government's inability to sort out the crisis on our ferry service, which is causing misery and mayhem for residents and businesses across the Highlands and Islands. It makes several minor commitments to the programme for government to maintain existing policies such as RET on current routes, where it is applicable or a pledge to establish further transport integration at ferry terminals. However, the glaring omission is a commitment to build any new ferries during this Parliament. The ferry network has seen ferry breakdowns on an unprecedented scale in recent months. Given over half the active ferry fleet is operating beyond its life expectancy, that would have been an ample opportunity to commit to new vessels in addition to the two delayed vessels that we await. On rural depopulation, I noted that the programme for government commits to creating a rural entrepreneur fund and an island infrastructure fund. Those are welcome measures, but I am concerned about whether or not this Government will be able, again, to deliver on its pledges. As I discovered recently through a parliamentary question, over the past five years, the SNP Government passed on less than half of its rural housing fund to local authorities, and just over half of its island housing fund. The Shetland Islands has received nothing from the island housing fund in the past five years. On that basis, how can we be confident in this Government to deliver on its new commitments? The programme for government falls desperately short on infrastructure commitments. It expects that the R100 programme will not be fully delivered to homes and businesses across the North Lot area until 2027. That is six years away. That is a damning indictment. The SNP made a cast-on commitment just five years ago that it would be delivered by this year, 2021, before this session of Parliament had begun. In conclusion, I note that the programme for government makes minor commitments here and there, but it is clear to those benches that this programme for government could have said and committed to a lot more than it has done. Despite this Government forming a coalition with the Scottish Green Party, its lack of ambition for Scotland remains static. The Scottish Conservatives have a bold commitment to deliver a number of bills in this session of Parliament, which we hope will receive support from others. However, as we recover from the Covid pandemic, now is the time for fresh ideas that will stimulate our economy and create new high-quality jobs, not another divisive independence referendum that turns focus away from what really matters to the people of Scotland. I now call Colin Beattie to be followed by Mercedes Villalba. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explore some of the content of the Scottish Government's programme for government. There is much here to commend, but I do promise Mr Cameron that I shall seriously avoid the words ambitious and bold since they offend him so much. In this short speech, I can only highlight a few of the many important initiatives that detailed that document. However, since the economy is very much my priority as we come through the pandemic and face the disastrous consequences of reckless Brexit, I will focus on that aspect of the programme. I welcome the emphasis on a green, sustainable and prosperous recovery for all. Managing the economy at any time is a challenge. Scotland having only some of the levers by which to do so is too often tenuous. Relying on a Tory Government in London to do the right thing by our economy, over which they have far too much negligent control, is an exercise in futility. The programme seeks to tackle those areas of the economy that we can influence and seek to strengthen and to nurture our businesses. So many businesses in our economy are struggling. The double hit of the pandemic, followed by Brexit, have left us with a fragile and uncertain economic future. Everything that we can do to support our economic accelerators and to mitigate those that tend to deflate our progress must be done. I cannot deny that this would all be easier if we had control of our own future and were able to direct our own resources to the best effect, but we do not have this control and so we must do all that we can with what we have. Let me focus on the solid facts of the programme for government. Developing a wellbeing economy is a hugely ambitious task, especially in the situation where we are now, but the situation is also an opportunity to do things differently. Economic prosperity is essential for all our futures and within that the economy is an integral part of our society, and pulling together economic development, the environment and social wellbeing makes simple sense. I welcome the first £200 million of tranchef capital for the Scottish National Investment Bank, with a total of £1 billion over the next five years. The provision of patient capital to help technologies and innovative businesses is vital. Many of the technologies that we are relying on to drive net zero are not yet developed to a point where they can actually deliver the benefit hope for. They need capital to do so. Putting in place regional economic partnerships makes absolute sense. Regional strategies and recovery plans will attract new public and private investment. New ways of working and closer cooperation between local businesses and local and national government is incredibly important. Investing in additional £500 million across this Parliament in delivering a fair, just and sustainable recovery, putting people at the forefront of economic delivery is good news. That will support new, sustainable green jobs and will help equip people to take on the new jobs of the future. I note that £200 million will be spent on adult upskilling and retraining. That is essential as our economy settles into a new reality and a new shape. The Scottish Government established a green jobs workforce academy within its first 100 days. That will provide support for oil and gas workers, among others of course, to transition into the low-carbon sectors. Overall, that college creates the opportunity to provide a single solution for those seeking transition into green jobs. To further support that, the green jobs fund will provide £100 million in capital over five years to help businesses to create green employment through investment with opportunities to retrain and upskill in new and high-growth areas. I think that you will note a heavy emphasis on retraining and upskilling throughout the entire approach to the economy and pulling it through pandemic and Brexit. The young person's guarantee has been an important and well-used scheme. The programme allocated £70 million, which combined with past investment, will provide 24,000 new and enhanced opportunities for young people. Given the impact of the current economic situation, young people tend to be affected more than other demographics, so the scheme is hugely important. Fair work has been a long-term ambition for this Government. It is indeed time for all employees of companies receiving public funds to be paid the living wage. I would also welcome the absolute abolition of zero-hour contracts in similar conditions. Thank you for taking the intervention. I agree with the member about wellbeing and job creation and green job creation, but could the member comment on the closure and mothballing of the only wind tower manufacturer that created wind offshore and onshore turbines? I think that that is a little bit out of the speech that I am giving at the moment. I am sure that others will touch on that. I note the commitment to exploring the possibility of a four-day week as a long-term private sector employer in my past life. I have some doubts about the practicality of that, but I am certainly willing to see the evidence. I suppose that one concern is that the productivity rate against GDP across the UK is poor compared to our competitors in Europe. How do we lift productivity level to meet the competition while at the same time reducing working hours and accommodating additional productivity gains to compensate for these reduced hours? As I said, I will await the evidence on that. Delivering a just transition will not be easy, however it is necessary. The national infrastructure mission will increase investment in infrastructure by £1.6 billion by 2026. That should be a game changer. A key part of this of making this investment delivered for our economy will be the supply chains, which will enable use of those funds. Supply chains are currently under intense scrutiny, both local and international supply chains. Brexit has created a severe disruption of existing supply chains at all levels. For this investment to work, supply chain issues must be addressed. Of course, the best and quickest way to address them would be for an independent Scotland to rejoin the EU. It makes absolute economic sense. Scotland is a trading nation and the ambition to increase exports by 25 per cent of GDP by 2030 is laudable. Our trade balance is immediately better than that of the struggling UK. All that, however, has been placed under threat by Brexit. There are so many other initiatives, but there is no time to touch on more than a small number. I am pleased that the overall tenor of this programme for government had moved Scotland in the right direction for the future. My biggest concern is that technology must move quickly, supported by the investments that we have shown. This is a document that the whole Parliament should be able to get behind and to support, and I commend it accordingly. I now call Mercedes Villalbaugh to be followed by Michelle Thomson. It is up to six minutes, please. When I delivered my first speech in this chamber, I was clear that I came to Parliament to fight for workers in my region and across Scotland. The reason that fight is necessary is because for too many workers their lives are constrained by the reality of our current economic system, which enables a few to accumulate ever greater wealth at the expense of the many. Workers are increasingly undervalued and faced with low pay, insecure work and poverty. After 14 years, the SNP has failed to offer a transformative vision for our economy. We have an economy built on declining public services, rising levels of inequality and ever-shrinking manufacturing base and increasingly insecure work. The programme for government represented an opportunity for the SNP to transform our economy to address those issues, but we are instead presented with proposals that just tinker around the edges. The Scottish Government has confirmed that it intends to publish a national strategy for economic transformation, a strategy that has been sorely lacking for 14 years. There was no strategy to save jobs and vital manufacturing assets when the Scottish Government stood by and allowed by-fab and the Cali railworks to be closed. There was no strategy to promote democratic ownership of essential utilities, which are still run for private profit, not public good. Given that the climate emergency is the greatest threat facing us, I am disappointed by the on-going lack of ambition from the Scottish Government in this area. The SNP promised to deliver 130,000 green jobs by this year, but the reality falls far short at just over 23,000. The First Minister has announced that a biodiversity strategy will be published by next autumn, but the programme for government appears to contradict it. I represent the north-east, so I am keen to ensure that we deliver a just transition for the region, given its dependence on the oil and gas sector for jobs and the wider local economy. We do not have a green industrial base, so we are forced to rely on turbine imports from Denmark, Spain and Germany to drive our shift to renewable energy. The programme for government refers to the creation of a £500 million just transition fund for the north-east and Moray, but provides absolutely no detail on how the fund will be invested. The Scottish Government pledged in 2017 to create a publicly owned energy company. That is something that Scottish Labour has been calling for, but we have heard nothing on its development years later, and there are now reports that ministers are set to abandon the pledge altogether. Despite the scale of the emergency, the Scottish Government seeks private finance and investment to deliver the green energy and technologies that we need. That is an abdication of responsibility. The Scottish Government should not be outsourcing tackling the climate emergency. It should be taking a central role in co-ordinating Scotland's response. When it comes to tackling the fundamental issues within our economy, the Scottish Government is failing. Over 300,000 workers across Scotland are on less than the real living wage. Striking ScotRail workers are being denied pay equality, and cuts to local government are hollowing out public services. That programme for government was an opportunity to announce the real changes needed so that we can tackle the climate emergency, end inequality and bring economic power into the heart of our communities. However, it is an opportunity that the Scottish Government has failed to grasp. I now call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. I welcome the programme for government as outlined by the First Minister. In particular, for the record, the actions to ensure Scotland has the opportunity to become a modern, normal independent nation as soon as conditions allow. For me, that is fundamentally about the freedom to make policy choices based on the needs of the Scottish people, and there are huge opportunities to be grasped. However, today I want to focus on how best to support the Government's ambitions in two areas—investment in transitioning to a green economy, and they need to overcome barriers to progress. The commitment to transitioning to a net zero economy is very welcome and hugely ambitious, and it is not something that the Government can do alone. Business must also change what it does and massively increase investment. According to October 2019 data from the World Bank, significant investment in infrastructure for the next 15 years alone will be required costing around US$90 trillion by 2030. Moving away from our reliance on fossil fuels cannot simply be done by stopping the use of fossil fuels. We need to invest heavily in new businesses such as those built around hydrogen technologies. Bringing the power-to-ex concept to reality that I recently discussed with lead researchers at St Andrew's University is a case in point. It is particularly important for my constituency of Falka East that includes Grangemouth. The United Nations has claimed that if our investment patterns do not earn change, we are on course for a 3.5-degree rise in global temperatures that will be devastating for our planet. We point, for example, to the need for pension funds and investors to move quickly and at scale to decarbonise their portfolios. For us, that must include how we leverage pensions and investments in support of the Government's ambitions. We are better than to start at home. I was disappointed to read in Business Insider back in April of this year that our parliamentary pension fund had not, at that time, fully divested itself of fossil fuel investments. Having looked at the 32 Scottish local authority pension funds, almost £50 billion in total is currently being invested by 11 regional funds. Strathcaid and Lothian are the largest and the most developed in climate investment practice. All funds, to some degree, acknowledge the need to address net zero ambitions, but there is some distance to travel. I was pleased to know in the Scottish Government's response to the Just Transition Commission that it plans to develop guidelines for voluntary disclosure. My own personal view is that, as soon as possible, that should be required, given the issues with the comply and explain, where often it is more often explained in terms of corporate governance. However, there is some good news in its twofold. Internationally, the World Bank, among others, has identified that transitioning to a green economy can unlock new economic opportunities and jobs, and the investment of £1 is likely to yield £4 in benefits claims. Secondly, because of Scotland's existing progress with renewable energy and our other natural advantages, we are in an ideal place to exploit the new opportunities that will create many more jobs in the future. Economically, it is not all sweetness and light, thanks to the current UK Government. As we look towards the future, we find a toxic combination of Brexit and the internal market act creating barriers to progress. As recent research by the Fraser Valander Institute and others has pointed out in relation to the internal market act, I quote, the effect is to circumvent not only the Barnett formula but the devolved Governments themselves. Part of the UK Government's response to Brexit has been to set up funds that are aimed at addressing lost EU structural funds. However, where is the Scottish Government, our Scottish Government was in the past able to assess needs and set appropriate priorities, the UK Government's replacement funds currently bypass the Scottish Government, setting up a competitive bidding progress process for local authorities. Interesting, the lead department managing this competition will be England's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am wondering whether that is what Liz Smith meant in the earlier comments about the good news that it will not be an English Minister bypassing our elected Scottish Parliament. I think that that speaks volumes. I am not aware that such a ministry has any expertise to assess Scottish needs. The lesson here has to be that until we achieve Scottish independence, we will always be at the mercy of the whims of a Tory Government in Westminster who fundamentally do not put Scotland's interests at heart. Yesterday's programme for government announcement was incredibly disappointing, especially for rural Scotland. It jeopardises rural jobs, rehashes old announcements and fails to tackle the urgent need for action in rural communities as we emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic. What it does prioritise, however, and it only takes the reader until page 4 to work this out, is the SNP green obsession with independence and breaking up Britain at the time of crisis. This programme puts their campaign for separation front and centre above recovery from the pandemic, which is nothing short of reckless. Today in the chamber, the health secretary took questions from MSPs worried about their constituents who cannot see a GP. This week, in my constituency, the practice of Caldingham was shut. It is just another rural practice that has been shut, another one on the list, because this Government has failed to attract GPs to rural areas. We heard concerns in the First Minister's statement about rising Covid cases, yet the Nashamish coalition will pursue a white paper on independence, diverting time and resource away from the things that matter to the people of Scotland. Whilst there are policies within the programme for government that benefit rural areas, it falls at the first hurdle when tackling the deep-rooted problems facing rural communities. I welcome, for example, the increased funding for more women in agriculture. However, there are questions to ask about how that will encourage diversity or lower the age of farmers who currently sits at 59 with the legislation that they are proposing to bring forward on succession planning. The agritourism growth strategy is fantastic, and it has taken straight from the Scottish Conservative policy. One may debate whether a souffle should be reheated, but those are old ideas rehashed. The rural entrepreneur fund is simply a rebadged rework S&P 2021 manifesto commitment. The manifesto said that it will create a new £20 million rural entrepreneur fund. Now, the national coalition programme for government says that, in the coming financial year, we will launch a £20 million rural entrepreneur fund. I think that is the same thing. The fundamental fact remains— Is it intervention? Yes. Ivan McKee? The minister understands the purpose of a manifesto and a programme for government. The manifesto says what we are going to do, and the programme for government brings it into the chamber to debate those points. So, did she expect us to put things in the manifesto and then not deliver them? Rachel Hamilton Thank you for Ivan McKee for that intervention. I can just go on with the list, and I will do within my speech. The rehashed and reworked commitments have been promised and failed to be delivered by your government. The fundamental fact remains that the central bulk-focused S&P green government is simply missed the point when it comes to the rural recovery, leaving Scotland's farmers on the scrap heap. For example, they make calls to double land for organic farming, but between 2012 and 2019, organic land decreased under this Government by 40 per cent—40 per cent, Presiding Officer—and stands currently at 1.6 per cent of total Scottish land. This Government are not listening to rural Scotland. Why have the S&P not acted on their own commission research, which highlights widespread abuse of Scottish gamekeepers? Why is there no reference to the scourge of fly tipping, which injures wildlife and farm animals, and which my colleague Murdo Fraser will bring a bill to tackle in this Parliament? Take the S&P obsession with bringing Scotland back in line with deeply unpopular EU regulation. Farmers across the country whipped with delight at the prospect of leaving this cumbersome bureaucratic red tape ridden cap regime with its three-crop rule and land-based payments rather than meaningful interventions to drive productivity and inefficiency. Due to the desire to align with cap, Scotland is put at a disadvantage, compared with the rest of the UK, because our internal market is worth three times that of the EU. Where is the draft farming and food production policy group report? It is still in draft format. It has not been published. That highlights the dismay that those individuals have with cap and the fact that delivering environmental objectives with payments levels is not always correlating clearly with public benefits. Further to that, the S&P's proposed realignment with the EU's controversial regime for pesticide regulation is a massive worry for farmers. We have seen before the debacle over glyphosate, and we cannot afford, in our fight against climate change and food sustainability, to leave decision-making to Brussels. We know that gene editing reduces the need for application of pesticides, which in turn would help the Scottish Government's biodiversity record and help the agricultural sector to meet climate change targets. As the country moves towards net zero in the coming decades, the agricultural sector has been identified as a sector that can lead the way in tackling climate change. With the newly announced ministers for zero carbon buildings, active travel, and tenants' rights and green skills, the circular economy and biodiversity, taking up their positions, I have been left to wonder when the Government are going to unveil the next Minister for compost, country bumpkins and the winter solstice, adding to the burgeoning number of spads and civil servants paid by the taxpayer. Fundamentally, this programme for government is designed to meet green demands and prop up numbers to push an agenda to break up Britain effectively a one-trick disaster duo. To build on Donald Cameron's point on delivery, one might ponder if the Greens who turn on vaccine passports set a precedent for future dealings that they will be happy to sit back when their new partners fail to deliver on rural housing targets, island depopulation, ferries, job creation and the economy. Presiding Officer, there's no mention of infrastructure. There's no mention of the things that matter to people in the rural economy. I know that my time's up, so I shall leave it there. The Scottish Conservatives are the only ones who can deliver for rural Scotland. What is our economy for? What are the values that underpin it? And what do we need to do to support the kind of economy that we want? Those are three of the fundamental questions that any Government must ask when considering how to govern, what legislation, policies and strategies should make up their programme for government. I have spoken here before about how the Scottish Greens seek to address those questions. We want our economy to serve society, to create the context within which all members of society can reach their potential. Such an economy must be based on care, creativity and co-operation, not driven by the profit motive. The fallout of the 2008 financial crisis and the current economic shock of the pandemic have demonstrated the failings of conventional economics that Liz Smith was talking about earlier and the pursuit of endless economic growth. We understand that mathematically, never mind ethically, you cannot have infinite growth in a finite system without that system collapsing. As we rebuild our economy, we must grasp the opportunity to do things differently, to reorient our economy so that it can support everyone to have what they need to live a good life, whilst supporting society to respect our planetary boundaries. We have, I think, already begun this journey, and this programme for government is Scotland's next step. It is not perfect. It does not do everything that we might wish it to. It does not, for instance, go as far as I'd like in challenging assumptions of industrial strategy. The advice provided on Ferguson's shipyard and Bifab has not been good enough. We need to look for advice from other sources. It also does not, indeed it cannot go as far as many of us in this chamber would like, because we do not have all the economic levers at our disposal. Given the powers of independence, we could see a plan—a Scottish Midner plan, if you will—to give workers progressively more ownership of the economy. We would also be able to maximise the enormous potential in a Scottish green industrial revolution. We know that we have the expertise and history to lead the way in heavy industry, manufacturing and engineering. However, there are key shifts in thinking in the programme for government that give me hope. We know that the same things that we need to tackle in the climate emergency are what we need to support economic recovery from Covid, investment in public transport, job creation—and we can do that by upgrading Scotland's homes, building up our renewables industry. Our recovery must be investment-led. The UK Government wants to cut spending by at least 5 per cent across all departments is terrifying. We cannot cut our way to success, to resilience, to prosperity. The Scottish Government must invest and is committed to investing and playing an active role in developing and growing green industries and ensuring that workers and wealth redistribution are at the heart of our recovery plans. At the heart of the programme for government is a commitment to a green economic recovery based on the policies and expenditure plans agreed in the co-operation deal between the Greens and the Scottish Government. That deal will mean billions of public money invested in green industries and determined action to ensure that public funds do everything that they can to support positive outcomes for workers and the environment. Investing in energy efficiency is the cheapest and most effective way of creating green jobs and reducing emissions. The green co-operation deal will see at least £1.8 billion in making Scotland's homes and buildings more efficient, tackling fuel poverty and creating new jobs and opportunities for builders, roofers, plumbers, heating engineers, joiners, winderfitters and so many more. That is tried and tested. Energy efficiency investment from Germany to South Korea was central to their recovery from the 2008 financial crash. We will also see the start of the investment of £5 billion in improving, expanding and decarbonising our railways to deliver a modern, reliable and zero-carbon train service, as well as major economic benefits. For every £1 billion invested in the sector, £1.6 billion is generated and 14,000 jobs are created. Regional rail links, including rural rail links, must make progress. We will like that to be developed as a result of the co-operation agreement in the north-east in my region, linking Peterhead and Fraserborough to Aberdeen, which will play a vital role in supporting local economic development. Just look at the border's railway, which has carried millions of passengers. I very much thank Maggie Chapman for taking in intervention. To create rural jobs, extending the railway down to Carlisle from Tweed Bank would be a game changer. Does the member support that? Thank you. I think that we need to look at rail infrastructure in all regions across Scotland, because it is the future of transport connectivity and community connectivity, too. We know that looking at the border's railway, which has carried millions of passengers since opening and attracted investment and tourism to the area, is a real way to generate economic sustainability. I am going to make progress, if you do not mind. The deal will also see billions more invested in the onshore wind industry, in addition to the rapidly growing offshore sector, and Greens will seek to ensure that that investment creates jobs and opportunities in the supply chain, too. We cannot continue to see our domestic manufacturing fail while turbines are imported. Finally, the Green Deal will see conditionality applied to all Scottish Government support, so that public money is always forwarding the just transition and promoting fair work. That includes requirements to pay the real living wage, recognise trade unions and ensure that recipients of public grants are not engaging in tax avoidance. That is what investment-led recovery looks like, and it is the economic recovery that people and planet need. While I am proud of the difference that the Greens are making, we need to do more. The TUC analysis of public spending on the green recovery and job creation in the G7 countries shows that the UK is lagging far, far behind, with Germany investing three times more per person and France four times more. While we are here in Scotland doing what we can, we need the UK Government to do their bit, too, to reject austerity and to commit to a long-term programme of green stimulus. Failure to invest in a green economic recovery would be a disaster for our planet and for our economy, so we have our work to do. However, the prize will be a prosperous, successful and resilient economy that supports a fair and green Scotland. I welcome the programme for government, and in particular the commitment to an independence referendum, which is always worth repeating the people of Scotland voted for. It is also worth repeating that Scotland has been dragged out of the EU against the wishes of its people by a party that has not won an election here since 1955. The Scottish Government is to be praised for stopping work on the independence referendum last year to focus on the pandemic, while the UK Government pressed ahead with a disastrous Brexit. It is absolutely clear that becoming an independent country is essential to building the Scotland that we know is possible and allows us to rejoin the EU. Scotland simply cannot afford to be part of a UK that is intent on destroying its economic base. We see shortages of labour and increased complexity in European trade. Take, for example, a small business in the heart of Stirling, the Scottish Gantry. They have spoken about their customs nightmares. They say that they have had great difficulty securing wine imports and exporting whisky products. They are drowning in paperwork and red tape. That is a damning indictment of the Westminster Government, who have betrayed Scotland's many world-class businesses with their Brexit obsession, and it is good to see Kate Forbes press the UK Government on those issues. There is so much in the programme for government to be commended, but there are three areas that I particularly want to highlight. Having spent a career in housing and building housing for people in need, I welcome the continuing expansion of the affordable supply programme, with a further £3.5 billion of investment and the building of an additional 110,000 new homes. Since 2007, over 1,700 social and affordable homes have been built in the Stirling constituency, and over the next five years a further £53 million will be invested. The SNP Government continues to transform areas like the Wraploch, which were abandoned under Labour into attractive, vibrant communities. It is thanks to the SNP Government and its abolition of the right to buy policy that councils are now able to build new homes, supporting the investment and the excellent work of 150 housing associations that work right across Scotland. Building new homes is vital for our economy, creating high-quality jobs, apprenticeships, whilst improving the health, the wellbeing and the life chances of our communities. That brings me on to the next aspect of the programme that is to be very welcomed. There are numerous references in the programme to support for jobs, businesses, the high street and tourism sector. You would not know from the comments of the opposition parties, but Scotland under the SNP Government has an excellent record in increasing and supporting employment. Unemployment in Scotland currently stands at 4.3 per cent, below the UK average of 4.7 per cent and well below the London figure of 6.2 per cent. Finally, I welcome the pardon of the miners across Scotland, as Fiona Hyslop has. Including those in my constituency in Bannockburn and the Eastern villages, the vicious and vindictive actions of the Thatcher Government obliterated an entire industry almost overnight. Many experts feel that there is a particular link between problem drug use, poverty and inequality caused by the UK's rapid deindustrialisation. The loss of these industries and the complete lack of any strategy to replace them destroyed communities. The Scottish Government is still having to deal with the legacy of that industrial vandalism. Listening to the contributions in the chamber, it is clear that many opposition members want to ignore the problems that their parties have created for Scotland. The Scottish Government already spends far too much time and resources mitigating the impact of UK Government policies. It now also has to try and mitigate all the negative consequences of Brexit. Now, at the worst possible time, the UK Government is introducing a tax on jobs with the increase in national insurance to pay for social care reforms in England. The Liberal Democrats want us to forget their enthusiastic role in imposing austerity in Scotland, which was really just an excuse to cut public spending and tax the poor. We cannot forget that the Labour Party really had the power to transform the whole of the UK between 1997 and 2010. Instead of tackling inequality, poverty and homelessness, the Labour Government kept the House of Lords and spent billions of pounds on the Iraq war, which cost millions of lives and bailed out the bankers with billions of pounds of public money. Of course, Labour recently voted for Johnson's supposedly oven-ready Brexit. Members, I cannot hear Ms Tweet. I would like to do so. I would be grateful for your co-operation. In closing, I welcome this ambitious programme for government, and in particular its commitment to giving our people the right to choose their future and the opportunity to build a fairer, greener and more sustainable economy for everyone in Scotland and those who come after us. The pandemic is first and foremost a health crisis, but it has also fast become an economic one. Too many lives and livelihoods have been lost and families fear for the health of their loved ones, for their jobs and their incomes. Never before has it been more important for this Parliament for this Government to step up to the map, but it fails to do that. It lacks urgency. The First Minister's statement yesterday was littered with references to, in the lifetime of this Parliament, except, of course, the coalition's real priority of another independence referendum that the Government wants within months. At a time of this Parliament, this Government should be focused laser-like when delivering a national recovery plan from Covid on health, on schools, on the environment and on the economy, nothing should distract from that focus. As Willie Rennie rightly highlighted, it will take a long time to deliver the recovery that we need. The programme for government is long on rhetoric about that recovery, but it is short on detail on a plan to deliver it. There are many worthwhile individual initiatives in the programme. Some are worthwhile, but, as Daniel Johnson said, the announcements are either retreads or so inconsequential that they barely scratch the surface. There is no overaction thread, no clear aims, no immediate strategy and, taken together, those initiatives do not go far enough. We cannot wait until the publication of a 10-year economic strategy. There are currently 32,000 young people out of work in Scotland right now. That figure has risen sharply in the past year, as young people face the challenge of entering the labour market in the midst of a pandemic, often in sectors that hit hardest and where government support failed to match what was needed, such as retail, hospitality and tourism. The number of new modern apprenticeships—I will take an intervention yet. I recognise the work on the young persons guarantee address and the very specific point that you made about use of employment. The problem that Ivan McKee has is that the young persons guarantee does not do what it says. The tenant does not guarantee real opportunities for all those 32,000 young people. Your own programme of government talks about 24,000 opportunities. There are 32,000 young people unemployed at this moment in time. Young people who have, I have to say, an SNP gang government that still thinks that zero-hours contracts are a positive destination. Frankly, we did ambitious—I will take an intervention on that point. It was Labour and the Smith commission that prevented the devolution of employment law, otherwise we would have fixed that some time ago. I appreciate that Mr McKee fails to ever take any responsibility for the powers that he actually does have, but your minister and your Government constantly refer to zero-hours contracts as a positive destination. Now, why do you continue to do that? It shows a lack of support for getting rid of zero-hours contracts. We need an ambitious job scheme that delivers a real guarantee of a job of training of education for every single one of Scotland's young and long-term unemployed. With follow-up coming to an end, which currently supports 141,000 jobs in Scotland and, again, often in those sectors, with a high proportion of young people, that figure for youth unemployment may rise further or, at the very least, it is not going to fall sharply because of this Government's programme for government. We need to make sure that the talents and skills of our young people match where opportunities and vacancies do and will arise in the future. The number of vacancies fell sharply in recent years compared to prior to the pandemic. According to the Scottish Government's own employer skills survey last year, there were half the vacancies that existed in 2017, but even then employers described a quarter of vacancies as hard to fill due to a skills shortage. As the number of vacancies increased not just through new demand as we open up the economy again but increasing automation, reports of labour shortages are growing almost across the board from farming to HGV drivers, partly because of Brexit and the barriers to overseas labour, but also because of the multitude of structural factors that go beyond our exit from the EU. There is a difference between a labour shortage and a skills shortage, but we will not tackle the former and the long-term if we do not do more to tackle the latter now. There is much in the Government's future of skills action plan that is hard to disagree with, but again there was little new in the programme of government to ensure that the scale of the response matches the scale of either the labour or skills gap challenge that we face. No wonder that in their response to the programme for government, the CBI in Scotland said that employers will be frustrated not to hear more about plans for upskilling and retraining. That lack of urgency and scale was also reflected in the SNP Green Government's response to the report of the Just Transition Commission. Fiona Hyslop described it as welcome, but the STUC said that it leaves much to be desired on future jobs creation and ensuring the burden of climate change is not carried by workers and the less well-off. As Mercedes Villalba said, it shows little has changed since the SNP promised 130,000 green jobs by 2020, but instead cut the number of people directly employed to just over 23,000. The cabinet secretary and her contribution referred to the Scottish Government's 100 million green jobs fund, but that was announced almost a year ago and it is yet to create a single job. As Daniel Johnson and Mercedes Villalba asked, what has happened to the plans to establish a publicly owned energy company? In June, the leader of the Scottish Greens attacked the SNP for not moving quick enough on the plan, yet today it is part of a government that appears to have just ditched it altogether. The programme for government could have put climate, not due to the constitution first, with a real plan for a Just Transition, focused on developing the skills needed in the green recovery and protecting jobs and communities impacted by the transition to net zero, but it has not done so. One other area that I want to briefly highlight, where we need to go further than the programme of government does, is on the future of our town centres. Walk through any high street at the moment and the fastest growing market you'll see is in providers to two let signs. Shop closures have accelerated the past year, but high streets have been in decline for a lot longer. We can't wait until the proposed retail strategy sometime in the future. We need an immediate fiscal stimulus package to encourage people back safely into our shops and to prevent lockdown behaviours from embedding permanently. The lifting of restrictions in the government loves local funding. The loyalty card, welcome and laudable as they are, do not scratch the surface of the plummeting footfall our town centres have faced. We can and should go further with a meaningful high street voucher scheme by providing a level playing field between bricks and mortar shops and online retailers through properly reforming business rates. We need to think out of the box when it comes to our high streets. For example, investing in getting more people living in our town centres again. As we face up to the uncertainty of what the current third Covid wave might mean, lives and livelihoods are still on the line and businesses are still on the brink, but we can genuinely build back better if we make the right choices by supporting businesses more now to get through the crisis and by investing to create stronger, more inclusive, more resilient and greener economies. However, we need a Parliament and a Government that is relentlessly focused on the issues that will matter over the next few years. A Parliament and a Government that will always put the recovery first, not another independence referendum. In presenting the programme for government yesterday, the First Minister and her team had a very simple choice to make. They could bring forward a set of proposals that we would unite at this chamber and the wider country. They would focus on what was important or they could decide instead to focus on measures that would divide us. It must be a matter of great regret that they chose the second option. It was entirely clear in advance of today's debate what the priorities for Scotland are at this point. We have to see a focus on economic recovery, as Liz Smith set out earlier this afternoon, helping to replace the jobs that have been lost, helping to support businesses that have suffered so much over the past 18 months. We have to see a focus on rebuilding our public services, helping our NHS, which we know is creaking at the seams and repairing the damage done to the lives of our young people due to the missing education over the past 18 months. The member opening for the Tories declined my opportunity to deny that the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government for England would lead the overruling of this democratically Scottish-democratic Scottish Parliament in assigning structural funds. Perhaps the member might want to deny that instead. Scotland has two Governments. It has a Government here and a Government in Westminster, and both Governments should be working together for the good of people of Scotland. I hope that the UK Government decides to start spending money on its constituency. It is not going to turn that money away and say that we do not want that money. I hope that it would welcome it on behalf of its constituents, because that would be the sensible thing to do. I have been starting to set out some of the issues that should have been addressed. Sadly, yesterday's programme for government did too little to address those issues. The voices of Scotland's businesses were very clear as to where the priorities should have been. The chief executive of the Scottish chambers of commerce, Liz Cameron, said that supporting business recovery must be at the front and centre of the Government's priorities. We agree with that. There needed to be a bold plan for jobs recovery with a target from the Government on a number of new jobs that could be created. Earlier in the debate, Daniel Johnson made a very fair point about the need for action now. We have heard a lot about long-term plans over five years. We cannot afford to wait. We need action to start now, because we want to see the Scottish economy growing faster than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, rather than lagging behind. Instead, the new SNP-green coalition— Does the Scottish economy know that it has rebounded faster than that of the rest of the UK back to pre-pandemic levels? That might have been the case over the past month or two. The long-term trend is very clear. The long-term trend is that we have been lagging behind the United Kingdom, as the member will know if he has done his homework. We have a First Minister who has appointed people to her Government, to hold ministerial office, who are actively hostile to the principle of economic growth. It is little wonder, therefore, that those business voices who were once enthusiastic supporters of the SNP are so dismissive of their approach now being taken. Only at the weekend we saw Jim McCall, once the yes campaign's biggest cheerleader, saying how badly let down he had been by this Government and how he felt used by them. We also saw Sir George Matheson, former chairman of the Scottish Government's Council of Economic Advisers, another enthusiastic SNP and yes campaign supporter expressing his concern about the power-sharing deal with the Greens and saying in his words that this raises concerns about whether the contribution of business is still valid. That is the business reaction, not the reaction from pro-union business people but the reaction from people who pin their colours to the SNP mass. That is their reaction to what this Government is doing and there is nothing in this programme that will reassure them. Instead of saying proposals that will take Scotland forward and unite us, instead we see proposals that will divide us. We see proposed a bill to reform the Gender Recognition Act. A proposal so contentious that, just last week, we saw one of the largest ever demonstrations outside this Parliament with hundreds of women from—oh, the First Minister thinks shame on me—dismissing the concerns of hundreds of women from across Scotland, who came outside this Parliament to express their concerns. She thinks shame on them. What a disgrace, First Minister, you are not listening to the concerns of these women. We await seeing the detail of this bill, but on those benches we are absolutely clear that women's rights must be protected in the context of GRA reform. I know that those concerns are shared by many on the SNP benches, too. We see proposals to bring forward the national care agency, which amounts to what has already been described as a blatant power grab from local authorities. COSLA has complained that it was given just a few hours' notice of the huge scope of the overhaul of public service being proposed, not just adult social care, but children's services, community justice, alcohol and drug services, social work and the elements of mental health services all to be centralised, all to be brought under Edinburgh control rather than decisions taken at a local level. We know that this is a Government that continually demands that powers be passed down to it from Westminster, but it is a Government that likes hoarding power here at Holyrood. In Scotland, it wants to strip powers away from local authorities and build empires for Scottish ministers. That is not something that we can support. It is about dividing Scotland when we should be uniting. By far, the worst proposal, and the most divisive, is the one that we see on preparations for another independence referendum. It is hard to imagine anything more damaging, more out of touch with the public mood, more disdainful of the concerns of business than to be pursuing another divisive referendum at this particular point in our history when the country faces so many other challenges. It is a misuse of public resources to divert the time of civil servants away from other vital work to focus on this. We know that the public do not want another referendum. We know that there is not support for it, just as there is not support for independence. It is an obsession of this party and Government and this First Minister to pursue the breaking up of the United Kingdom when there are so many other priorities. Mr Fraser, please ask that we desist from sedentary comments. Thank you. I would like to hear Mr Fraser. What is worse is that the plans for a referendum bill at some point in the future are utterly pointless, because holding a constitutional referendum, as we all agreed in 2014, is outwith the powers of this Parliament. We would waste parliamentary time on a bill that will go nowhere. That is all about stirring division. That allows the First Minister to grandstand to her party faithful when she knows, and we know and they know that she has absolutely no ability to deliver on that objective. It is, in the simplest of terms, a total on utter waste of parliamentary and Scottish Government time. However, there is one thing that I do agree with the First Minister, and that is when she said that a new case for independence is needed, because the one that was presented in 2014 is now exposed as a work of fiction, whether on oil, on Scotland's finances or on currency, even the person who led that campaign, the former First Minister, the man whose name can no longer be mentioned, has been airbrushed out of SNP history. Now we have the SNP's shiny new signing, their latest economic guru, Professor Mark Blyth, setting out the hard realities of independence. In his words, quoted by Liz Smith earlier, it would be Brexit times 10. This is not a unionist politician saying this. It is not even a non-aligned academic. It is this Government's newly appointed chief economic advisor, a cheerleader and supporter of a separate Scotland, saying that, in his view, independence would be 10 times more damaging than Brexit. Every time we hear someone on the SNP benches, and we heard it in the debate this afternoon, mumping and moaning about Brexit or blaming supply chain issues exclusively on Brexit, let's remind them what their own expert says about it. It would be 10 times more damaging to go down the route of independence. Just to conclude, it is shameful that that is the priority of this Government at this particular time. It is all too typical of an administration that is out of ideas, an administration that would divide us rather than unite us. It is nothing new to offer the people of Scotland this programme for government. It is one that should be rejected. Thank you very much for signing off. I will take a few minutes, as is customary, to go around and comment on some of the comments that have been made this afternoon, although I do not have time to get around everything and the time available. I think that it is really just to close off on the point that Liz Smith made. Every other country in the world borrowed to get through Covid. Scotland would have been no different where we are an independent country. Let's get that nailed. It's hugely important. The point that Murdo Fraser made is that he cannot resist himself talking down Scotland's economy at every opportunity. The facts are that, if you had done your homework, you would know that. In the period from pre-pandemic February 2020 until now, Scotland's economy down 2.1 per cent, UK economy down 2.2 per cent. If we look at unemployment, I point made by some of my colleagues in the chamber this afternoon. Scotland's unemployment at the moment is 4.2 per cent, and the rest of the UK is 4.7 per cent. We still work to do, but if you want to talk about comparisons with us in the rest of the UK, we are at the moment doing better. Daniel Johnson talks about business engagement. I can tell him that I talk to businesses every single day of the week. I had two meetings with businesses this morning before I came to the chamber to deliver the speech here this afternoon. If you talk to businesses, they talk about labour market shortages and the issues that affect them. We recognise that. We understand that. We have businesses engaged in the work that we are doing on the national economic strategy. They recognise the value of that. They recognise, as they did in a changes position, the importance of having a long-term strategy to address those issues. That is exactly what we are doing. Yes, I will. I do not know that he has those meetings, but is he listening? The reality is that, in a few short weeks, 150,000 people, as they were on furlough, will find themselves having to go back into employment. I am sure that there needs to at least be a contingency if those people's jobs are no longer there for them. Where is that in the programme for government? Where is the contingency? It was the £500 million in skills investment that I talked about in the whole range of other interventions that I talked about where we are supporting people to get back into work. The reality is that, at the moment, we are facing labour market shortages in every sector across the economy, and we have people that we need to work with to get them the opportunity to take up those opportunities. If he talks to businesses the way I do, he would understand that labour market shortages are the biggest issue that they have. Willie Rennie talks about that as well. He talks about the high wages that that is driven. We also welcome that. I want to say some more on that as I go through in my remarks and the efforts that we are taking proactively to embed that in our economic strategy. He talks about material shortages and shortages of HGV drivers in logistics, driven largely by Brexit. We are working hard to influence the UK Government where we can on many aspects, including visas for those drivers to come in and support our industries. We are working hard with the construction sector and others at a very detailed level to address those material shortages that are affecting businesses right across Scotland. Fiona Hyslop made some very valid points, and that reinforces my point about strong engagement with businesses. The tourism recovery group, the recovery task force, the work that it came forward with in conjunction with the Government, £25 million of support that was identified and invested to support that, and now we are moving on to look at phase 2 proposals from that group. I want to thank the minister for giving me his advice. I know that he does engage with businesses, and he has assisted me with many businesses in my constituency. However, all the things that he has said about the disruption in part that has been caused by Brexit, does that not give him some thought about the disruption that would inevitably come with independence? Independence will create opportunities, and I will come on and talk to that in my comments as I go forward. I do not have much to say about Donald Cameron, but it was bold, but I am afraid that he is not ambitious. Other members have talked about the real living wage and the importance of that. I remind Labour members that if they had not had that ridiculous position in the Smith commission, they would have already dealt with that issue through the devolution of employment law, but Colin Beattie raised that and others. The programme for government has a very strong commitment on conditionality, which I am delighted to take forward with regard to real living wage and other aspects of the fair work first agenda. In our green ports agenda that we are taking forward will be one of the first areas where we will embed that conditionality to lift the wages right across this country. Mercedes Villalba talked about a part of Labour now does not support private sector investment in the economy. Who knew? A very interesting policy shift there. That £3 billion green investment portfolio is precisely to attack international investment into investing. Our green transition towards net zero, along with the public sector investment, you need both of those to deliver on that. I point Michelle Thomson, who made very well in her comments, that £3 billion green investment portfolio in locking that investment apart of our global capital investment plan, alongside the work of the global ethical finance initiative, really setting up Scotland as a centre for ESG investment. It is something that we are very proud to take forward. Maggie Chapman talked about conditionality, and I already covered that, and the point about investment and infrastructure has made the very strong point that we need the power to do that, as did my colleague Evelyn Tweed. Moving on from that to concluding, how many minutes have I got left? Three, four, okay. This debate has been about our programme for government, a programme that recognises the central importance of Scotland's economy to our recovery and transformation, and it recognises the Government's commitment to supporting and working with businesses the length and breadth of this country. The Government is an ashamedly pro-business. We understand the need to grow Scotland's economy, to create prosperity, to fund our public services and to create those opportunities for all Scotland's people to realise their potential. We understand the need for that growth to be completely aligned with our overriding twin imperatives of delivering net zero and delivering on our fair work agenda. We understand that productivity is the key to a successful economy and recognise that a well-being economy provides opportunities and prosperity for all of Scotland's people who are built on a strong, productive economy. The range of measures that are detailed in the programme makes that clear. There are initiatives to strengthen the skills pipeline that our growth businesses need to support workers transitioning to low-carbon sectors or those entering the labour market for the first time. Our initiatives to support investment in the economy, public sector investment in our public services and infrastructure, and to intelligently stimulate private sector investment in our growth businesses and wider economy. Our initiatives to support entrepreneurship across all sectors of our population and specifically targeted at key groups, women, rural entrepreneurs and others. Our initiatives to further internationalise our economy and drive up exports despite the vandalism inflicted on it by the UK Government's misguided Brexit policies. However, the programme also delivers on our wider ambitions for Scotland, the just transition to net zero contributing to the global effort to address the climate emergency and to create a fair work nation, a country where everyone is paid at least the real living wage. We work with businesses, sector groups, regional economic partnerships across the country to deliver on those ambitions to create a high productivity, high innovation, high technology, high wage economy. We all want to see an economy that works for everyone. It also recognises the limitations of our current powers on investment, employment law, international trade and elsewhere. Rightly it calls for the people of Scotland to have a say in whether all those powers should come to this Parliament as an independent country. That is the opportunity that will create for those businesses in Scotland. Our national strategy for economic transformation will be published later this year. As the cabinet secretary has made clear, that will be a national endeavour co-produced with stakeholders across the country and implemented alongside businesses and others. It will build on top of the initiatives in the programme for government and will be an ambitious 10-year agenda to transform Scotland's economy. I look forward to working with businesses and others across the country to deliver that bold and ambitious agenda.